Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Ltd v Arup Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2017] QSC 232
•20 October 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Ltd v Arup Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 232
[2017] QSC 232
20 October 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Ltd (BAP) brought an action against Arup Pty Ltd (Arup) in the Supreme Court of Queensland. BAP sought damages for losses allegedly incurred due to Arup’s alleged failure to provide professional services in accordance with the terms of a contract between the parties. Arup denied liability and raised several defences, including that the claim was statute-barred.
The court was required to determine whether BAP's proposed amendments to its statement of claim introduced a new cause of action which was statute-barred. Arup argued that the amendments introduced a new cause of action in negligence, which was statute-barred. BAP disagreed and submitted that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather clarified the existing cause of action. The court needed to consider whether the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action, whether any new cause of action arose out of substantially the same facts as the existing cause of action, and whether it was appropriate to allow the amendments.
The court found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather clarified the existing cause of action. The court noted that the amendments did not alter the facts on which the claim was based, nor did they introduce new allegations or seek to rely on a different legal basis. The court concluded that the amendments arose out of substantially the same facts as the existing cause of action and that it was appropriate to allow the amendments. The court granted leave for the amendments to be made substantially in the form of the amended statement of claim filed on 2 May 2017.
No further orders were made.
The court was required to determine whether BAP's proposed amendments to its statement of claim introduced a new cause of action which was statute-barred. Arup argued that the amendments introduced a new cause of action in negligence, which was statute-barred. BAP disagreed and submitted that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather clarified the existing cause of action. The court needed to consider whether the proposed amendments introduced a new cause of action, whether any new cause of action arose out of substantially the same facts as the existing cause of action, and whether it was appropriate to allow the amendments.
The court found that the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather clarified the existing cause of action. The court noted that the amendments did not alter the facts on which the claim was based, nor did they introduce new allegations or seek to rely on a different legal basis. The court concluded that the amendments arose out of substantially the same facts as the existing cause of action and that it was appropriate to allow the amendments. The court granted leave for the amendments to be made substantially in the form of the amended statement of claim filed on 2 May 2017.
No further orders were made.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Amendment of Pleadings
-
Statute of Limitations
-
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Northern SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority t/a Unitywater v Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 253
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Northern SEQ Distributor-Retailer Authority t/a Unitywater v Monadelphous Engineering Pty Ltd
[2025] QSC 253
Brisbane Airport Corporation Pty Limited v Arup Pty Limited
[2020] QSC 202
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
1
Menegazzo v Pricewaterhousecoopers (A Firm)
[2016] QSC 94
Borsato v Campbell
[2006] QSC 191
Jetcrete Oz Pty Ltd v Conway
[2015] QCA 272